Posted
by
Soulskill
on Monday December 27, 2010 @07:09PM
from the eventual-acceleration dept.

Ponca City writes "The Detroit Free Press reports that Ford plans to offer start-stop systems on many cars in 2012 that save fuel by turning an engine off when the vehicle is idling and quickly restart it when the driver releases the brake or steps on the gas pedal, improving fuel economy by 4% to 10%, depending on driving conditions. The system, common in Europe on cars with manual transmissions, is already in use in the US on gasoline-electric hybrids, including the Ford Fusion Hybrid. Automakers have been reluctant to add the feature to cars in the US because the testing method that the Environmental Protection Agency uses to determine fuel efficiency ratings doesn't include many stops and thus doesn't recognize the technology's effectiveness."

Guess you missed the 365HP/350lb ft, 25MPG Taurus SHO with the 3.5 V6 then, eh? Adding this would just improve that fuel economy while costing nothing in performance. Compare it to the 3.7L 305HP/275lb ft Acura TL with the same fuel consumption in a 400lb lighter car. Ford became pretty serious about US fuel economy a couple years ago and they mortgaged the company a couple years ago to achieve it and it's rightfully paying off for them.

Additionally, you need to ensure that the engine block retains heat longer which in most cases means bigger and heavier engine block

Retaining heat is not a problem with any engine, especially a water-cooled engine. Start your engine and watch your temperature guage; shut it off when it's halfway to normal operating temperature. Start it again ten minutes later and you'll see the g

The majority of all engine wear comes during start/warming of an engine, but only because its when oil pressure doesn't exist and lubrication has gone elsewhere.

In this situation, it doesn't apply because the engine has been freshly lubricated and oil lines are likely still highly pressurized. So unless you have extensive and conclusive studies, your comment completely flies in the face of all established ICE doctrine.

Additionally, you need to ensure that the engine block retains heat longer which in most cases means bigger and heavier engine block

No you don't. That's only true for diesel engines which require a thermal element to start. I looks like we're talking about gasoline engines. So your comment seemingly has absolutely no merit.

Similarly, you may need some extra work on the cat and emission control to keep the entire system warm and ensure you stay within pollution limits.

The catalytic converter does need to maintain a specific temperature range to properly function. This, however, can be addressed by the use of a heating elements (to maintain a temp - even perhaps outside of limits) and/or periodic engine starts (to maintain limits).

On top of that you need a beefier starter motor and a beefier battery

Thus far, this appears to be your first legitimate complaint. Having said that, starter technology has progressed significantly over the last two decades. Starters can now be roughly a quarter the size they were only two or three decades ago and with much higher reliability. So lets say they add an extra ten pounds of weight in starter/battery. That's comparable to roughly 1.2 gallons of automotive fuel. If the technology can save 10%, for most vehicles, that alone more than offsets the weight penalty associated with the added technology.

to ensure you get the cranking current for it so that the engine starts up straight away.

Wrong. This is seemingly like a pattern here.

They specifically stop the engine at a specific position so that it need only spark to initiate combustion, rotation, starting, and charging of the battery. So basically, nothing really new needs to take place. The only caveat is one needs to properly monitor the battery's health to ensure the engine starts, to recharge the battery and/or maintain catalytic converter efficiency.

A good engine especially diesel eats nearly nothing in idle

I no longer remember the exact number, but idle consumption in the US alone is a considerable amount of fuel. So reduction of this consumption is a worthy goal and should not be hand waved and ignored.

All in all you get worse pollution (and nastier - particles and unburned/partially burned hydrocarbons),

Completely baseless statement and likely extremely wrong. In fact, its extremely likely to dramatically reduce pollution as idle is typically the lowest point of efficiency for ICE and catalytic converters. By almost entirely doing away with the phase which creates a disproportionate amount of pollution, the increase in air quality is likely to be disproportionately profound.

worse economy and worse performance than an smaller and "weaker" normal engine with an electric boost similar to the one on the Honda, Mercedes and a few others.

Completely baseless statement and likely extremely wrong.

Frankly, I'm not sure anything you said is even remotely grounded in fact.

I wouldn't say they sucked in the 90s either, just on certain models (The Taurus from what I've been told really wasn't good) but their trucks were to use a slogan "Built Ford Tough". I have a 99 Ranger that even after 130,000 miles purrs just like the day it rolled off the line, those Vulcan V6s are some solid motors and there have been many reports of guys getting over 300,000 before needing a rebuild. while my dad prefers his 2011 F350 he still has his 95 F350 for hauls that might scratch the paint, and

Actually, there is another company that makes something similar to a Ranger, still - Toyota Tacoma. Supposedly the Tacoma is the reason why the Ranger is falling behind; I don't know.

I'm sure it's not a bad truck, but I'd not trust it, given what I've seen from Toyotas in my short few years.

It's quite possible Ford just didn't charge enough for the Rangers, or made them too well: people don't buy them anymore because they already have one, or they're readily available on the road, still.:)

He probably just wishes he could buy a European Ford in America as they're generally far superior. Presumably the reason why they aren't available is that Americans aren't used to paying so much money for small cars. There's less of a perceived correlation between size, status and quality on this side of the pond.

Just because the engine is 'warm enough to drive' doesn't mean the car is - my car takes 5-8 mins of running before the heater is warm enough to prevent my breath from causing condensation on the windshield.

What a wuss. Ever heard of a "winter jacket"? Or a "hat"? No wonder we're running out of oil: we insist on wearing short sleeves in subfreezing conditions and burning oil to change the environment to be comfortable, instead of just using the remarkable inventions created by prehistoric man, called "clothes".

What a wuss. Ever heard of a "winter jacket"? Or a "hat"? No wonder we're running out of oil: we insist on wearing short sleeves in subfreezing conditions and burning oil to change the environment to be comfortable, instead of just using the remarkable inventions created by prehistoric man, called "clothes".

Keeping the windshield warm enough so that your breath doesn't freeze on it goes beyond mere comfort. Also, the more you're wearing, the harder it is to move; and since most people already suck at drivi

Outside of when I lived in Alaska and I had to deal with -25F mornings I have NEVER had my breath condense on the windshield. But then I use the car properly and run the defroster the second the car starts, moving cold air across the windshield prevents this. Plus your car will actually start pumping out warmer than outside air to that within 30 seconds. 3 degrees difference is enough to keep things clear on a high fan speed.

This is laid out clearly in your car's manual, honda, toyota, ford,GM all say to

And modern engines need no more than 30 seconds of idling to be "warmed up" for driving."

My 2007 Honda Civic may need 30 seconds for the engine to be ready to pull loads, but in 20 degree fahrenheit weather, it needs 12 minutes at least or I'll be driving around with fogged up glass. (Extremely dangerous).

Wear a mask that covers your mouth and nose and breathe through your nose as much as possible. Seriously. It is of course a good idea to get the defrost going properly, but if you're in a rush or it isn't working well, you can reduce the amount of water vapor that you exhale.

Not that cold? It's 12 degrees below freezing which is why he has the problem in the first place.

I'm not sure you are understanding the situation or perhaps you got your F and C mixed up. And yes, I'm used to 20 degree C too. In the smaller compact cars, this can be an issue where it's not as much as one in the larger cars where the windshield is further from the people sitting in it.

It doesn't matter anyway; catalytic converters don't clean up car exhaust until you've been running at a fairly high power setting for several minutes. On the motorway when you're piling on the coal they work just great but around town they make emissions far worse.

My car battery dies just about every winter because it's driven 1.5 miles to the transit station and 1.5 miles back. That type of driving takes a serious toll on a battery when the temps hover around a balmy -22F for several weeks a year. Will this restart the engine from the battery? If so, will Ford replace it under warranty for having a feature included for those of us who don't idle our cars ever because we take mass transit?

Many vehicles just won't charge up the battery if driven that way in really cold weather. I've sometimes had to make a point of taking mine for a longer drive to charge up the battery. One alternative might be walking some or all of the time. Another is to buy a battery charger and charge your vehicle from house current at night.

Bet whether the engine is going will depend on the load on the overall system. If the A/C is on full, the load will be enough to justify the engine being on (well, at least a lot of the time; that'll depend on a bunch of other factors such as how well insulated the passenger compartment is and what size of battery is fitted).

My guess is that in a modern vehicle will do whatever is necessary to perform the enabled functions. Turn on the car, turn up the heat and the computer will run the engine if that is necessary. Once the car is up to the specified temperature the engine will shut off again to preserve power. I suppose they could have missed this use case, but that seems unlikely.

How does this system behave in cold weather? Sometimes, I want the car running for a while, either to power the heater or to just warm up the engine before I take it on the road?

I just drove my Uncle's Prius in 10F (~-12C) weather, and it restarts just fine. Given that Ford obviously knows how that works, I'd think there wouldn't be much of a problem. But yeah, if you need the heater, it's gonna run more. The Prius did that, so again, Ford has the advantage of seeing a problem already solved and starting from there. I know I'm more confident in being able to solve a problem if someone else did it first.

The coolant pump is electric so that it can be ket running when the engine is off. The 100C coolant that runs through the heating coil doesn't cool significantly in the time you would spend at a traffic light.

um... the engines already hot... since it's been running... so, unless your at the stoplight for 30min and it's 30 bellow out, I don't see it being a problem. Also, it would be pretty easy for them to include a thermostat in the system that re-heats the engine when it drops too low.

You know how a water pump can be driven by an auxiliary electrical motor don't you?

Can be, sure. But we're talking Ford. Water pumps have never been their strong suit. (Owned many a Ford, generally pleased, but water pumps are just not so good. My old dealer had a display case of consumables -- oil, grease, filters, spark plugs, water pumps -- next to the parts department. Someone had a sense of humor.)

Actually, you had a problem with your alternator - you can remove your battery completely once your engine has started and drive around town just fine (seriously, give it a go - just remember not to turn off the motor unless you're next to another battery). As long as the engine's running, all power for the car comes directly from the alternator, indirectly from the engine.

As to your FUD though... what would have happened if the water pump had died instead? In your scenario you'd have had absolutely no he

In all cars I have driven, the "heater" uses the heat generated by the engine and transferred to the radiator fluid. Then there is a radiator across which air is blown to heat the inside of the vehicle. The amount of radiator fluid in the heater core at any one time is not very much. If the engine is not running, the heater will not remain warm for long.
On the flip side, the Air conditioner compressor is belt driven and will definitely not do anything if the car is not running. On these new cars, will the

There's little doubt the heater would cool off some, but even at a long traffic light it's not like the car will freeze over while you wait. Keep in mind, there will still be convection and the water in the heater core will still be in direct contact with the water in the rest of the cooling system.

It behaves perfectly well in cold weather. I have a 2.0L/200bhp diesel BMW in the UK where it's been sub-zero (that's on the rest-of-the-world temperature scale) for the last month. A number of pre-requisites have to be met for the car to commence the start-stop behaviour, such as the engine having warmed up sufficiently, battery charged etc.. There's also a button on the dash to disable it as it can get a little annoying during rush hour due to frequent stopping in heavy traffic. It took a couple of weeks to get used to, but it now feels strange to sit at the lights with the engine running. It's very fast aswell; kills the engine below 5mph when the car is in neutral and clutch is out, then the moment you hit the clutch to pop her back in gear she fires up again, so quickly that it's almost impossible to get your foot on the gas before she's running.

Not sure how they plan to implement it for cars which run in "stupid mode" (automatic transmission); presume it'll crank it when you take your foot off the brake to drive off.

BMW specifically recommend NOT warming the car up for long periods before driving off; it's no longer necessary due to today's technology, nicosil-plated cylinders etc...

I slap the wrists of any of my users who shut down "their" machines. Because after they're done with them, it's my turn to do work on them, and not every manufacturer (Apple, esp) knows how to utilize WOL properly (No, Apple, WOL doesn't just mean wake from sleep. We want wake from off-state).
When we eventually get around to using idle machines for extra render nodes, there will be public shamings for users that shut down for the night.

I've heard the same thing about fluorescent lights. But in both cases, it's wrong. The Prius, for example, gets rather incredible mileage because of (not despite) this. There could be increased wear, if the devices in question aren't designed properly, but the Prius handles all the starts and stops just fine. Average cheapo fluorescent lights, on the other hand, tend to burn out quickly if cycled on and off, though.

would say it would use about the same, But the biggest issue could be is the wear on the starter motor and engine of start and stopping it like that would lead to repair bills and/or lose of fuel economy.

I've seen this covered time and time again. In a modern vehicle, if you know you're going to be idling more than 30 seconds or so, it's better for fuel economy to shut it off. The Car Talk [cartalk.com] guys even mention it (little over halfway down).

Supposedly, with older carbuerated vehicles, you could waste a fair bit of fuel with frequent starts. Modern fuel injection systems don't have that problem, unless you have seriously leaky injectors.

On fuel injected cars you pay the penalty on a cold start - until the engine and exhaust / emissions systems are warmed up, the car runs rich (open loop).

Once the car is warmed up, the ECU (engine control unit) will go into a more efficient closed loop operation, using O2 sensor output to set more efficient fuel levels. Shutting off the engine for a moment will not send the system back to the less efficient open loop.

Cars have not had a Cold Start injector for 20 years. current cars made withing the past 8 years have not done what you say either. This is true of older cars or cars that have a carb though.

Honestly, ECM systems in cars are way way smarter than you are used to, any modern car are within closed loop in 3 seconds, most cars have heated O2 sensors that are there instantly and the open loop is adjusted based on sensors that can be read instantly.

How many cycles will a flywheel driving starter motor / solenoid setup last?

TFA doesn't mention what will be used, but a spring / torsion system that captured the rotational inertia of the engine to stop it, and then used that stored energy to restart the engine would be great for warm restarts.

Replacing the starter is cheap and easy enough on most engines (with the exception of the LT5, where GM marketing departments bonehead requirements demanded the same bore spacing as the smallblock so the starter sits in the lifter valley underneath the intake plenum - a royal pain in the ass to swap it out). It's certainly much cheaper and easier to replace than the other parts that excessive start/stop cycles will destroy: the bearings, lifters, valves stems, and so on. In other words, the engine will be a

Automakers have been reluctant to add the feature to cars in the U.S. because the testing method that the Environmental Protection Agency uses to determine fuel efficiency ratings doesn't include many stops and thus doesn't recognize the technology's effectiveness.

When I asked the question several years ago, a Ford engineer told me that they didn't implement it because non-hybrid cars didn't have enough battery capacity. I know that each start drains a car battery, and then the battery recharges as you drive (even in standard, all-gas-powered, non-hybrid cars). I inferred from his statement that standard car batteries wouldn't recharge quickly enough to provide capacity for frequent restarts. That would make sense; designing that much capacity into standard batteries would be a waste.

Does anyone know the truth? Was the engineer full of it? Is Ford using higher-capacity and/or faster-charging batteries? Don't tell me to RTFA, because I did and know enough not to take everything at face value.

A quick Google search shows the Lupo 3L had start/stop technology. The battery size I'm unsure of but I believe it uses the same size as the other model Lupo cars, which would make it a 12v 60Ah. Varta's website shows their "Start-Stop Plus" batteries have those specs and are made for start-stop systems.

As I've sometimes tried to start my car a dozen times or more at a time because of one problem or another, I suspect he's full of it. Not to mention it would be easy enough to implement a battery voltage detection system that disable the system if their is not sufficient charge.

As I've sometimes tried to start my car a dozen times or more at a time because of one problem or another, I suspect he's full of it. Not to mention it would be easy enough to implement a battery voltage detection system that disable the system if their is not sufficient charge.

Both good points. I'd also consider that 'Start-Stop' would have to be able to restart the car much more than a dozen times in a trip around the city.

A good deep-cycle battery with a good cold cranking amps rating would be able to handle this just fine. But car manufacturers tend to prefer the cheapest parts possible to get a car on the road, so he was probably speaking more in economics than in possibility.

A deep cycle battery is not a good cranking battery. There are three types of chemistries for lead acid:

Motive Power - this chemistry is most effective at providing enormous amounts of current for very short periods of time, say up to 60 seconds, but usually less than 30. The most common application is starting piston engines. It is generally intended to be drained to not less than 80% of capacity before being recharged.

Power Supply - this chemistry is designed to provide small amounts of current for lon

Does anyone know the truth? Was the engineer full of it? Is Ford using higher-capacity and/or faster-charging batteries? Don't tell me to RTFA, because I did and know enough not to take everything at face value.

My guess is that it requires a different kind of starter. My 2003 Civic Hybrid has this feature; but the reason why it works is that there's a 15hp dynamo built into the engine block.

It is a known fact (maybe not widely known) that a very large propotion of engine wear occurs in the first few seconds after startup. When the engine is stopped, gravity pulls oil back down to the sump, and the oil pump takes thise seconds after startup to redistribute oil around the engine to vital moving parts. I also suspect that will increse the thermal shock loading on the engine, especially as the O rings will suffer a much greater number of heating/cooling cycles than in a regular engine.

When the engine is stopped, gravity pulls oil back down to the sump... if you leave it for several minutes. Stop a car engine and immediately turn the key back on. How long does it take for the oil pressure light to go off? If it's less than about 30 seconds, your engine is badly worn. At that point there's still a good, deep film of oil on the bearing surfaces - there's just no pressure to force more in immediately.

Yes, startup from cold. The engine is stopped for brief enough periods to mitigate problems with oil cooling or flowing away from where it's needed. Also, what do you mean by O-rings? I can tell you that the things sealing the pistons against the cylinder are called piston rings. O-rings are usually rubber and they're used in the same situations as gaskets.

The conspiracy theorist in me says that this is just a way for manufacturers to increase their revenues for ongoing maintenance (as these engines WILL need far more regular maintenance cycles)

When was the last time you sold a car because the engine had worn out? As opposed to selling it because the body rattles, the upholstery is worn, the doors leak water when it rains, the paint is scratched, the windshield is cracked, plastic parts are broken, the dashboard is crumbling?

Um, unless you're running zero weight oil in your car (you're not)... it doesn't run like water back to the sump in 60 seconds.

Your "known fact" is sort of correct when a car has been parked for some time (say, overnight) and you're cold starting it. But even that's a bit of a stretch these days with modern synthetic oils. Tear a motor down even after it's been sitting for weeks and you'll still find oil clinging to the bearing surfaces and pistons/cylinders.

What is the real goal of this? Is it really to decrease fossil fuel consumption, or is it planned obsolescence, considering that most engine wear occurs during engine start up when oil has drained back into the crankcase? Will all vehicles with this feature be equipped with electrically-driven dry sump systems so the bearings and lifters are already pressurized at start-up?

Dry sump systems make a hell of a lot more sense, considering that in a "normal wet-sump system" the pump is bolted to the engine block and is driven by the engine, costing power, not to mention the power loss by having the crankshaft slosh around in a pool of oil stored in the sump (oil pan).

I'd think it should be possible to rig up the flywheel so it can be used to store momentum to restart the engine after a short stop. An electric clutch - normally engaged to keep the engine running when said clutch has broken down - with a soft engage mechanism so the flywheel can smoothly get the crank turning. A modern engine generally starts in the first two or three rotations of the crank, especially when it is already warmed up. Stop the engine while keeping the flywheel running, wait for the lights to

What has me interested is seeing electrification of all the accessories (power steering/brakes/AC compressor/etc) that are currently typically driven by belts off of the engine. Besides being more efficient, removing them from the motor reduces drag on the motor and enables higher RPMs, thus more power density. Hopefully, even on 'normal' cars, we'll get to the point where the only things driven from the motor will be the output shaft and the starternator (starter/alternator combo unit, possibly integrated in-line between the engine output shaft and transmission input).

Hopefully this will help reduce the cost of these components due to economies of scale.

What has me interested is seeing electrification of all the accessories (power steering/brakes/AC compressor/etc) that are currently typically driven by belts off of the engine. Besides being more efficient, removing them from the motor reduces drag on the motor and enables higher RPMs, thus more power density. Hopefully, even on 'normal' cars, we'll get to the point where the only things driven from the motor will be the output shaft and the starternator (starter/alternator combo unit, possibly integrated in-line between the engine output shaft and transmission input).

Hopefully this will help reduce the cost of these components due to economies of scale.

If an accessory, say a compressor for air conditioning or power steering, requires x amount of horsepower to do it's job when driven by a belt, changing it to an all electric component will still require x amount of horsepower to do the same amount of work. You'll just need a larger alternator which will be harder to spin (require more horsepower) when there is the additional electrical load on it.

Belt-driven devices need to be designed to operate with a wide RPM operating range, which reduces their efficiency. Also, the belt is dragging at all times, and limiting the motor's rev range (or requiring even wider RPM ranges for the pumps/compressor).

You need higher voltages to get the best efficiency, but presumably you could have a LiIon higher-voltage battery that has a transformer to drive the 'legacy' 12V accessories..

Also, direct-drive electric motors engineered for a fixed RPM are more reliable

That's a great way. I wish more people - especially politicians - would require actual measurable results, rather than simply latching onto an ideology and basing all their decisions on that, no matter what the results are.

But something that Ford is demonstrably capable of: they did not receive TARP money like the dinosaurs down the street, precisely because they recognized in the early oughts, the need for more fuel efficient, reliable cars. (although that may just have been due to being sick of all the "found on road, dead" jokes in the 90s...)

That was not what he meant. The technology is tried and testes. Maybe half of the cars around me use it. It works, it's reliable, and it undeniably saves gas/emissions. The problem here is that it doesn't save so much gas on the EPA test track. As such, it's not worth it - no matter the environmental benefits in the real world.